Talk:Wild Law

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Rewrite

The entire article should be completely rewritten - the current version reads like a blurb from the publisher. Addhoc 13:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact and check tags

I'll remove all the sections tagged with {{fact}} and {{check}} tomorrow. Addhoc 13:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I think that is a little hasty. The creator of this and several realated articles has shown the ability and willingness to add references to the articles when the need was pointed out. This is not WP:BLP and nothing stated in the article is of earth-shattering importance if not immediately sourced. Give it a few days. Thanks!--killing sparrows 20:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation problem

As I've pointed out on wild law, there is a problem with the first citation. The source is merely a one-paragraph description of the book which does not actually state the matter asserted. I'd like to see a better citation. Coming to this as one who has not yet read the book but has a great interest in the topic, I consider this a serious flaw - if I didn't click on the link I'd think that I knew what the book was generally about, but when I click on the link I think you're filling me full of it. Doug. 03:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:1903998352.02. SS500 SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg

Image:1903998352.02. SS500 SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

promotional

This article still reads like PR. Lesley, this article (and other WP articles) should describe the subject in question rather than only trying to justify why the subject is notable. That would mean, more or less: (a) what the book is about, (b) the impact of the book (in neutral terms!), (c) criticism of the book. Too much of this article is the (b) section, and it reads like a press release rather than an encyclopedia article (i.e. it needs to be more neutral in its tone, see WP:NPOV). Benwing (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]